If this was about industrial capacity, we wouldn't be attacking education, chilling investment, attacking energy innovation, attacking science and research, and creating a historically unstable economic environment, all without a whisper of any logical industrial policy.
Stop trying to rationalize the destructive foolishness of this leadership.
There is an element in that the US protects Taiwan. When China was content to make stuff and not invade places things were fine but now it's building up it's military and saying it will take back Taiwan things are more awkward. It's bad for the US in a war situation with China if all their stuff is imported from China.
And "content to make stuff"? You mean back when they were underpaid workers doing low-complexity manufacturing and not actually competing with the U.S.?
> but now it's building up it's military and saying it will take back Taiwan things are more awkward.
Maybe it's building up its military because it keeps hearing things like "pivot to Asia" and "we need to prepare for war with China"—for about 8 years now. If I were China, and knowing how the U.S. has violated international law by invading other countries (like Iraq), I’d be ramping up my military even more.
> not invade places
Which country did they invade?
Can you tell me more about Chinese invasions?
> saying it will take back Taiwan
Should the world cancel the USA because it is saying something about annexing Canada\Greenland?
Not the world, but If I were Canada\Denmark, I would think twice about if I rely on the US for defense and arms.
That said Taiwan is a red herring.
Im not sure the US policy has a coherent strategy. If there is one, it is that US economic and military hegemony is waning with global economic growth.
Negative sum strategies are valid in war and power competition. If a global recession hurts the rest of the world less than US, that could be a strategic win.
Of course, how is that even a question?
During the Chinese Communist Revolution the previous government of China retreated to Taiwan. The official name of the Taiwanese government is “Republic of China”, demonstrating that their legitimacy stretches back to this time period.
While Chinese settlers in Taiwan dates back further, China claimed the island in the 17th century. The island was under Japanese rule for about 50 years, before being returned to China in the post WW2 treaties.
The history is deep, and Taiwanese independence is a relatively new thing.
It is based on a manifest destiny ideology that the PRC is the only legitimate heir of Chinese culture and history, and sole rightful ruler of all people of Chinese descent.
From a security standpoint it would be like if a group of US politicians and other elites took over Cuba and called themselves The Republic of The United States. Yeah, an island nation wouldn’t win a fight, but their intentions are in the title.
ROC is not going to conquer or invade PRC. The is ideological and presented by ROC merely existing.
A civilized compromise might be a union like the EU with both governments continuing on an equal basis.
Not only do Western governments not actually oppose this, they have orchestrated the overthrow of democratic governments and installed dictatorships numerous times when it suited their interests.
The actual Western perspective is not to give a damn who runs Taiwan or how many locals they kill as long as we can do favorable business with them. Although the Red Menace rhetoric does play well at home.
Which is itself ideological, being based on a theory of conflict. The giving up of those capabilities was a result of times of peace.
Effectiveness of drones and advanced missiles in the war was also a wake-up call that semiconductors and batteries have a strategic military importance, and the rest of the world is quite dependent on China and Taiwan for these.
I assume that all the talk about trade deficits and unfair competition from Chinese EVs is bullshit, and the US and the EU are having an "oh shit" moment realising they're unprepared for the world where wars are fought with drones and robots.
This is political incompetence fueled by social media polarization & former political incompetence.
The best time for rebuilding our industrial capabilities in an orderly way was the 1990s. The second best time is now.
The entire theory is also based on inequality. We build nothing and we ship all the low paid / environmentally disastrous industries abroad.
What I disagree with is the methodology, which is simply idiotic.
I do not buy that the only answer to the recent incompetence of the US (and western in general) political system is to shock it with even more incompetence.
This is a direct effect of electing a president who deeply, firmly believes that having a trade deficit means we're getting "ripped off", and who has succeeded in dismantling most of the checks and balances around this sort of thing.
There's no 4d chess here. Trump has been both serious and literal about tariffs his entire career.
What Trump doing is not that. It's tariffs on everything, without any distinction on whether something is important for our national security or not.
Every successful tariff that I've read about through history has been:
1) Targeted on a segment.
2) Accompanied by subsidies.
3) A plan for developing competence in the segment through education and training.
Sounds a lot more like the half measure than whatever this is.
You're right in that this is a big hammer though, but that's more often used for tearing things down rather than building.
I never thought the ~leopards~ hammers would ~eat~ smash MY ~face~ thumb!